Parus Holdings, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 9, 2021

IPR2020-00687 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 37
571-272-7822 Date: September 9, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

APPLE INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2
____________

Before DAVID C. MCKONE, STACEY G. WHITE,
and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
Denying Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
37 C.F.R. § 42.64
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
review of claims 1–7, 10, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,451,084 B2 (Ex. 1030,
“the ’084 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Parus Holdings, Inc., (“Patent Owner”)
filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 6. We authorized
Petitioner to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 7),
and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 8). After considering these filings
by both parties, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–7, 10, and
14 of the ’084 patent on all grounds of unpatentability alleged in the
Petition. Paper 9 (“Institution Decision” or “Dec.”).
After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response.
Paper 15 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 19 (“Reply”).
Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 21 (“Sur-reply”)), as well as
Objections to Evidence (Paper 20 (“PO Obj. Evid.”)). Patent Owner filed a
Motion to Exclude certain evidence submitted by Petitioner (Paper 29
(“Mot. Excl.”)), to which Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 30 (“Opp.
Mot. Excl.”)). Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to its
Motion to Exclude (styled a “Sur-reply”). Paper 32 (“Reply Mot. Excl.”).
An oral hearing was held on June 22, 2021, and a transcript of the
hearing is included in the record. Paper 36 (“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that
follow, we determine Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of
the evidence that claims 1, 7–10, and 14 of the ’084 patent are unpatentable.
We also deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

3

A. Related Proceedings
The parties identify the following district court proceeding as related
to the ’084 patent: Parus Holdings Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00432
(W.D. Tex.) (“the Texas case”); Parus Holdings Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
No. 6:19-cv-00454 (W.D. Tex.); Parus Holdings Inc. v. Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 6:19-cv-00438 (W.D. Tex.); Parus Holdings Inc.
v. Google LLC, No. 6:19-cv-00433 (W.D. Tex.); and Parus Holdings Inc. v.
LG Electronics, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00437 (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 68; Paper 5, 1.
The parties also identify U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705 and U.S. Patent
No. 7,076,431 as related to the ’084 patent, and further identify that U.S.
Patent No. 7,076,431 has been asserted in the district court proceedings
listed supra, and is the subject of IPR2020-00686. Pet. 68; Paper 5, 1.
B. The ’084 Patent (Ex. 1030)
The ’084 patent, titled “Robust Voice Browser System and Voice
Activated Device Controller,” issued September 20, 2016. Ex. 1030, codes
(54), (45). The ’084 patent relates to a “robust and highly reliable system
that allows users to browse web sites and retrieve information by using
conversational voice commands.” Id. at 1:35–38. Systems disclosed by the
’084 patent allow devices connected to a network to be controlled by
conversational voice commands spoken into any voice enabled device
interconnected with the network. Id. at 3:37–41. Systems disclosed by the
’084 patent also allow users to access and browse web sites when the users
do not have access to computers with Internet access, by providing users
with a voice browsing system to browse web sites using conversational
voice commands spoken into voice enabled devices, such as wireline or
wireless telephones. Id. at 3:29–32, 3:52–59. The users’ spoken commands
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

4

are converted into data messages by a speech recognition software engine,
and are transmitted to the user’s desired web site over the Internet. Id. at
3:60–65. Responses sent from the web site are received and converted into
audio messages via a speech synthesis engine or a pre-recorded audio
concatenation application, and finally transmitted to the user’s voice enabled
device. Id. at 3:65–4:3. The disclosed voice browsing system maintains a
database containing a list of information sources (e.g., Internet web sites),
with rank numbers assigned to the information sources. Id. at 3:17–20, 4:5–
20. The ’084 patent explains that:
the voice browser system and method uses a web site polling and
ranking methodology that allows the system to detect changes in
web sites and adapt to those changes in real-time. This enables
the voice browser system of a preferred embodiment to deliver
highly reliable information to users over any voice enabled
device. This ranking system also enables the present invention
to provide rapid responses to user requests. Long delays before
receiving responses to requests are not tolerated by users of
voice-based systems, such as telephones. When a user speaks
into a telephone, an almost immediate response is expected. This
expectation does not exist for non-voice communications, such
as email transmissions or accessing a web site using a personal
computer. In such situations, a reasonable amount of
transmission delay is acceptable. The ranking system . . .
implemented by a preferred embodiment of the present invention
ensures users will always receive the fastest possible response to
their request.
Id. at 4:4–21. Figure 1 of the ’084 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a
voice browsing system. Id. at 4:29–30.

IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

5

Figure 1 illustrates a voice browsing system. Id. at 4:29–30.
Voice browsing system 118 illustrated in Figure 1 includes media
servers 106 (which may contain a speech recognition engine), database 100,
web browsing servers 102, and firewalls 104 and 108. Id. at 5:10–18, 6:10–
12, 6:20–23, 20:26–34. Voice browsing system 118 connects on one side to
voice-enabled device 112 (e.g., a telephone) through public switched
telephone network (“PSTN”) 106, and to individual websites 114 through
internet 110 on the other side. Id. at 19:56–20:38.
Specifically, a user of the voice browsing system establishes a
connection between voice enabled device 112 and media server 106 by, e.g.,
calling a telephone number associated with the voice browsing system.
Id. at 19:59–62. Once the connection is established, media server 106
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

6

initiates an interactive voice response (IVR) application that plays audio
messages to the user presenting a list of options, such as, “stock quotes,”
“flight status,” “yellow pages,” “weather,” and “news.” Id. at 19:62–67.
The user selects the desired option (e.g., “yellow pages”) by speaking the
name of the option into the voice-enabled device 112. Id. at 20:4–18. The
system asks the user further details of the user’s search, and the user speaks
into telephone 112 the details of the user’s search (e.g., looking for
“restaurants,” types of restaurants, zip codes for the restaurants). Id. Media
server 106 uses the speech recognition engine to interpret the user’s speech
commands; for example, media server 106 may identify keywords in the
user’s speech. Id. at 6:60–7:2, 20:19–21. Media server 106 then uses the
recognized keywords to search website records stored in database 100,
retrieves an appropriate web site record from the database, and provides the
record to the web browsing server 102. Id. at 6:65–7:2, 20:20–23.
Information is then retrieved from the responding web site and transmitted to
media server 106, for conversion into audio messages—performed by a
speech synthesis software or by selecting among a database of prerecorded
voice responses contained within database 100. Id. at 20:35–46.
Database 100 contains sets of records for each web site accessible by
the voice browsing system. Id. at 5:17–20. Figure 2, reproduced below,
illustrates an example of web site record 200 in the database. Id. at 4:31–32,
5:19–20.
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

7

Figure 2 illustrates an example of a web site record in database 100. Id. at
4:31–32, 5:19–20.
Each web site record 200 contains rank number 202 of the web site,
associated Uniform Resource Locator (URL) 204 for the website, and
command 206 that enables an extraction agent to generate proper requests to
the web site and to format data received from the web site. Id. at 5:20–25.
For each category searchable by a user, database 100 may list several web
sites, each with a different rank number. Id. at 20:47–50. As an example,
three different web sites may be listed as searchable under the category of
“restaurants,” and each of those web sites will be assigned a rank number
such as 1, 2, or 3. Id. at 20:50–53. The web site with the highest rank (i.e.,
rank=1) will be the first web site accessed by web browsing server 102. Id.
at 20:53–55. If the information requested by the user cannot be found at this
first web site, web browsing server 102 will then search the second ranked
web site and so forth down the line, until the requested information is
retrieved or no more web sites are left to be checked. Id. at 20:55–59.

IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

8

C. Illustrative Claim
Petitioner challenges claims 1–7, 10, and 14, of which sole independent
claim 1 is illustrative. Claim 1 is reproduced below with Petitioner’s
identification of claim elements in brackets, and the dispositive claim
limitation in this proceeding italicized:
1. [Preamble] A system for acquiring information from one or
more sources maintaining a listing of web sites by receiving
speech commands uttered by users into a voice-enabled device
and for providing information retrieved from the web sites to
the users in an audio form via the voice-enabled device, the
system comprising:

[1(a)] at least one computing device, the computing device
operatively coupled to one or more networks;
[1(b)] at least one speaker-independent speech-recognition
device, the speaker-independent speech-recognition
device operatively connected to the computing device and
configured to receive the speech commands;
[1(c)] at least one speech-synthesis device, the speech-
synthesis device operatively connected to the computing
device;
[1(d)] memory operatively associated with the computing
device with at least one instruction set for identifying the
information to be retrieved, the instruction set being
associated with the computing device, the instruction set
comprising:
a plurality of web site addresses for the listing of web sites,
each web site address identifying a web site containing the
information to be retrieved;
[1(e)] at least one recognition grammar associated with the
computing device, each recognition grammar
corresponding to each instruction set and corresponding to
a speech command, [1(f)] the speech command
comprising an information request provided by the user,
[1(g)] the speaker-independent speech-recognition device
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

9

configured to receive the speech command from the users
via the voice-enabled device and to select the
corresponding recognition grammar upon receiving the
speech command;
[1(h)] the computing device configured to retrieve the
instruction set corresponding to the recognition grammar
provided by the speaker-independent speech-recognition
device;
[1(i)] the computing device further configured to access at
least one of the plurality of web sites identified by the
instruction set to obtain the information to be retrieved,
[1(j)] wherein the computing device is further configured
to periodically search via the one or more networks to
identify new web sites and to add the new web sites to the
plurality of web sites, [1(k)] the computing device
configured to access a first web site of the plurality of web
sites and, if the information to be retrieved is not found at
the first web site, the computer configured to access the
plurality of web sites remaining in an order defined for
accessing the listing of web sites until the information to
be retrieved is found in at least one of the plurality of web
sites or until the plurality of web sites have been accessed;
[1(l)] the speech synthesis device configured to produce an
audio message containing any retrieved information from
the plurality of web sites, and
the speech synthesis device further configured to transmit the
audio message to the users via the voice-enabled device.
Ex. 1030, 24:2–59 (limitation numbering designated by Petitioner; see
Pet. 70–72 (“CLAIMS LISTING APPENDIX”)) (emphasis added).
D. Instituted Challenges to Patentability
We instituted inter partes review of claims 1–7, 10, and 14 of the ’084
patent on the following challenges. Dec. 2, 47.
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

10

Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References
1–6, 10, 14 103(a)1 Ladd,2 Kurosawa,3 Goedken4
7 103(a) Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, Madnick5
5, 6 103(a) Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, Houser6
1–6, 10, 14 103(a) Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, Rutledge7
7 103(a) Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, Rutledge, Madnick
5, 6 103(a) Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, Rutledge, Houser

Petitioner relies on two Declarations from Loren Terveen, Ph.D.
Exs. 1003, 1040.8 Patent Owner relies on a Declaration from Benedict
Occhiogrosso. Ex. 2025.

1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’084
patent was filed before March 16, 2013, the effective date of the relevant
amendment, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
2 Ladd et al., US 6,269,336 B1, issued July 31, 2001 (Ex. 1004).
3 Kurosawa, JP H09-311869, published December 2, 1997 (Ex. 1005). We
rely on the certified translation of JP H09-311869 (Ex. 1005).
4 Goedken, US 6,393,423 B1, issued May 21, 2002 (Ex. 1006).
5 Madnick et al., US 5,913,214, issued June 15, 1999 (Ex. 1007).
6 Houser et al., US 5,774,859, issued June 30, 1998 (Ex. 1008).
7 Rutledge et al., US 6,650,998 B1, issued November 18, 2003 (Ex. 1010).
8 Portions of Exhibit 1040 are the subject of Patent Owner’s Motion to
Exclude Evidence, which we deny, infra. Paper 29.
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

11

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
Petitioner filed its Petition on March 18, 2020. Pet. 98. Based on that
filing date, we apply the same claim construction standard that is applied in
civil actions under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is articulated in Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 83 Fed. Reg.
51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (applicable to inter partes reviews filed on or after
November 13, 2018).
Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and
customary meaning.” 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary
meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person
of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at
1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then
only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
In the Petition, Petitioner contended that we should give the claim
terms their ordinary and customary meaning, and did not identify any claim
term for construction. Pet. 13.
After pre-institution briefing was completed, but before we instituted
trial, the court in the Texas case issued a claim construction ruling,
construing “speaker-independent speech recognition device” to mean
“speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without adapting
to individual speakers or using predefined voice patterns.” Ex. 1041, 2.9

9 The court in the Texas case issued other constructions pertaining to the
challenged claims, but the parties do not advance them in this proceeding
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

12

The parties agree that this term at least requires a “speech recognition device
that recognizes spoken words without . . . using predefined voice patterns,”
but disagree as to whether it should require a device that recognizes spoken
words “without adapting to individual speakers.” PO Resp. 21 (“The proper
construction of ‘speaker-independent speech recognition device’ is
consistent with the construction issued by the Western District of Texas,
though it does not include all of that court’s construction, and requires at
least ‘speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using
predefined voice patterns.’”); Reply 2 (“For purposes of this IPR, Apple
submits the Court’s construction should be applied.”).
The dispute regarding whether the term should preclude adapting to
individual speakers does not impact any issue in this proceeding, and
Petitioner has agreed to Patent Owner’s construction in this proceeding, so
long as we do not resolve the dispute over adapting to individual speakers.
Tr. 12:24–13:4 (“JUDGE McKONE: So you’d be happy if we essentially
adopted Parus’s construction with a footnote or some kind of note that we’re
not resolving the issue of adapting to individual speakers? MS. BAILEY:
That would be fine for purposes of this IPR, Your Honor.”). We adopt the
parties’ agreed approach. For purposes of this proceeding, “speaker-
independent speech recognition device” means “speech recognition device
that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” This
is consistent with the ’084 patent’s statement (relied on by both parties) that
“[t]he voice browsing system recognizes naturally spoken voice commands
and is speaker-independent; it does not have to be trained to recognize the

and we do not find it necessary to adopt them in order to resolve the parties’
dispute.
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

13

voice patterns of each individual user. Such speech recognition systems use
phonemes to recognize spoken words and not predefined voice patterns.”
Ex. 1030, 4:52–56; see also PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1030, 4:47–56);
Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1030, 4:51–56). We take no position on whether the
construction also should include “without adapting to individual speakers.”
Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide
express claim constructions for any other terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only
to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs.,
Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at
least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering,
Computer Science, or an equivalent degree, with at least two years of
experience in interactive voice response systems, automated information
retrieval systems, or related technologies. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28).
On the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of one of
ordinary skill in the art for essentially three reasons. First, Patent Owner
does not contest Petitioner’s assertion. See generally PO Resp. Also,
neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our
adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Moreover, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the
references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in
the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

14

an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC
Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary
skill in the art was best determined by the references of record).
C. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–7, 10, and 14 (Grounds 1–3)
Petitioner asserts that claims 1–7, 10, and 14 would have been
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined
teachings of Ladd, Kurosawa, and Goedken (claims 1–6, 10, and 14); Ladd,
Kurosawa, Goedken, and Madnick (claim 7); and Ladd, Kurosawa,
Goedken, and Houser (claims 5 and 6).10 Pet. 19–64. For support,
Petitioner relies on declaration testimony from Dr. Loren Terveen (Exs.
1003, 1040).
1. Overview of Ladd
Ladd discloses a voice browser for interactive services. Ex. 1004,
codes (54), (57). Ladd’s system uses a markup language to provide the
interactive services, by creating and using a markup language document, the
markup language document having a dialog element including a plurality of
markup language elements and a prompt element, including an
announcement that is read to a user. Id. Ladd’s communication method
selects the prompt element, and defines a voice communication /
announcement in the prompt element to be read to the user. Id. Ladd’s
system also accepts data inputted by the user. Id.

10 A discussion of Madnick and Houser are not necessary to our disposition
of Petitioner’s assertions.
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

15

With Ladd’s system, users can access information from information
sources or content providers, using voice inputs and commands. Id. at 2:48–
58. For example, users can access up-to-date information, such as news
updates and traffic conditions. Id. The system also allows users to perform
transactions, such as order flowers, place restaurant orders, obtain bank
account balances, and receive directions to various destinations. Id.
Ladd’s Figure 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below.

Figure 1 is a block diagram of system 100 including network access device
102, electronic network 104, and information source 106. Id. at 2:21–25.
Device 102 is connected to network 104 via line 108, and information
source 106 is connected to network 104 via line 110. Id. at 26–29. “The
lines 108 and 110 can include, but are not limited to, a telephone line or link,
an ISDN line, a coax[ial] line, a cable television line, a fiber optic line, a
computer network line, a digital subscriber line, or the like.” Id. at 2:29–32.
Alternatively, device 102 and information source 106 can wirelessly
communicate with network 104. Id. at 2:33–35. Network 104 “can include
an open, wide area network such as the Internet, the World Wide Web
(WWW), and/or an on-line service,” and can also include “an intranet, an
extranet, a local area network, a telephone network, (i.e., a public switched
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

16

telephone network), a cellular telephone network,” and other networks. Id.
at 3:27–39.
Ladd’s Figure 3, reproduced below, illustrates a system including a
voice browser, enabling “a user to access information from any location in
the world via a suitable communication device.” Id. at 4:62–67.

Figure 3 illustrates a system 200 including a voice browser 250, enabling a
user to access information. Id. at 4:62–67.
System 200 includes one or more communication devices or network
access apparatuses (e.g., 201, 202, 203, 204), an electronic network (206),
and one or more information sources such as content providers (e.g., 208,
209) and markup language servers. Id. at 5:12–19. A user can retrieve the
information from the information sources using speech commands or DTMF
(dual-tone multi-frequency signaling) tones. Id. at 5:17–19. When a user
dials into electronic network 206, a communication node 212 answers the
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

17

incoming call and retrieves an appropriate announcement (i.e., a welcome
greeting) from a database, server, or browser. Id. at 6:3–17. In response to
audio inputs from the user, communication node 212 retrieves information
from a destination or database of the information sources (content providers
208 and 209 or markup language servers). Id. at 6:18–25. After
communication node 212 retrieves the information, communication node
provides a response to the user based upon the retrieved information. Id.
Communication node 212 may include telephone switch 230, voice or
audio recognition (VRU) client 232, voice recognition (VRU) server 234,
and voice browser 250. Id. at 6:65–7:7. In response to voice inputs from the
user or DTMF tones, voice browser 250 generates a content request (i.e., an
electronic address) to navigate to a destination of one or more information
sources. Id. at 11:30–34. The content request can use at least a portion of a
URL, a URN, an IP, a page request, or an electronic email. Id. at 11:34–36.
Voice browser 250 processes markup language that may include text,
recorded sound samples, navigational controls, and input controls for voice
applications. Id. at 15:60–64. The markup language enables developers of
service or content providers to create application programs for instructing
the voice browser to provide a desired user interactive voice service such as
providing up-to-date news, weather, or traffic. Id. at 15:65–16:5. Content
providers 208 and 209 send requested information to the voice browser. Id.
at 11:60–63. The content providers include a server to operate web pages or
documents in markup language. Id. at 11:55–58. Content providers 208 and
209 can also include a database, scripts, and/or markup language documents
or pages, where the scripts may include images, audio, grammars, and
computer programs. Id. at 11:57–61.
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

18

2. Overview of Kurosawa
Kurosawa discloses an Internet search server that obtains requested
information from a plurality of URLs, and delivers a search report to a
client. Ex. 1005, code (57). Figure 2 of Kurosawa, reproduced below,
illustrates an Internet search server.

Figure 2 is a functional block diagram of an Internet search server. Id. ¶ 20.
Internet search server 10 illustrated in Figure 2 includes a URL
database 11 having a comparison table with a plurality of keywords
representing search condition elements, and URLs relating to the keywords.
Id. ¶¶ 20–21. Figure 5 of Kurosawa, reproduced below, illustrates a
keyword table 21 (of URL database 11) listing keywords used in a URL
table 22 (of URL database 11) illustrated in Figure 6 (also reproduced
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

19

below). Id. ¶ 21. Kurosawa provides that “anything that is not listed in the
keyword table 21 cannot be searched for.” Id. URL table 22 illustrated in
Figure 6 is a comparison table of a plurality of URLs and keywords related
thereto. Id. ¶ 21. Search server 10 regularly updates the URL table 22 in
URL database 11 using automatic search tools, such as Internet web
crawlers. Id. ¶ 23.
When a client sends a search request to Internet search server 10,
search condition element extraction unit 13 (of server 10) extracts search
condition elements from the client’s search request, and URL search unit 14
(of server 10) extracts keywords (included in the search condition elements)
from keyword table 21, and selects URLs (from URL table 22) having the
extracted keywords listed therein. Id. ¶¶ 26–28. A URL listing order
arranging unit 15 (of server 10) determines a listing order for the selected
URL addresses (URLs), based on priority conditions for efficient searching.
Id. ¶ 29. Thereafter, URL listing unit 16 (of server 10) sequentially lists the
URL addresses of the respective URLs in the determined order, and accesses
respective webpages of the URLs. Id. ¶ 30. A URL information gathering
unit 17 (of server 10) sequentially accumulates information from the URL
pages, for presentation to the client. Id. ¶¶ 30–31.
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

20

Figure 5 illustrates a keyword table 21 in URL database 11. Id. ¶ 21.

IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

21

Figure 6 illustrates a URL table 22 in URL database 11. Id. ¶ 21.
3. Overview of Goedken
Goedken describes a method and apparatus for facilitating information
exchange, via a network, between an information requestor/searcher and one
or more information custodians, which are persons that “know[] where to
locate and/or ha[ve] custody of the information that interests the searcher.”
Ex. 1006, code (57), 1:41–44. The searcher creates an information request
message and sends it to the apparatus, and the apparatus determines an
appropriate custodian and sends a request message to that custodian. Id. at
code (57). Based on the messages, the apparatus provides a final answer
message to the searcher, and may also record the answer message for
subsequent retrieval. Id. For example, the apparatus may record portions of
final answer messages developed by information custodians, in a knowledge
database. Id. at 19:43–48. Goedken provides that its disclosed apparatus
may be incorporated into an Internet portal. Id. at 21:40–43.
4. The Parties’ Contentions Regarding Independent Claim 1
Petitioner asserts that claim 1 would have been obvious over the
combined disclosures Ladd, Kurosawa, and Goedken. Pet. 19–51. Relevant
to our disposition of this proceeding, Petitioner asserts that Ladd discloses
the claimed “speaker-independent speech-recognition device” in the form of
“automatic speech recognition unit (ASR) 254.” Pet. 23. According to
Petitioner, “Ladd expressly teaches the ASR unit is a ‘speaker-independent’
‘speech recognition’ device” because “[t]he ASR unit 254 of the VRU server
234 provides speaker independent automatic speech recognition of speech
inputs . . . .” and such “ASR unit ‘processes the speech inputs from the user
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

22

to determine whether a word or a speech matter matches any of the [stored]
grammars. . . .’” Id. at 23–24.
Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s assertion regarding this claim
element. PO Resp. 35–38. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that,
consistent with its proffered claim construction, “[t]he ̓ 084 patent disclaims
the use of voice patterns to recognize a spoken command, which restricts a
system to a sharply limited vocabulary.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1030, 4:55–56;
Ex. 2025 ¶ 82). According to Patent Owner, Ladd operates in the manner
that is disclaimed in the ʼ084 patent because “its ASR recognizes a
predefined speech pattern.” Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1004, 9:36–39). Patent
Owner avers that Ladd’s “express requirement . . . that the ASR 254 relies
on ‘recognized voice pattern[s]’ runs directly contrary to the” claim element
at issue. Id. at 38.
In response, Petitioner argues that “Ladd’s determination of voice
patterns occurs at a different step in the speech recognition process than
[Patent Owner’s] excluded voice patterns.” Reply 4. Specifically, according
to Petitioner, speech recognition devices generally use a two-step approach
to accomplish speech recognition:
1) converting a “user’s spoken words into text using various voice
recognition algorithms, including analyzing voice patterns,” and
2) “[a]fter converting the spoken words into text, the content of the
word, e.g., what is commanded by the word, is determined by
comparing the text to a recognition grammar.”
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

23

Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1039, 50:21–51:8, 51:14–52:22, 54:6–55:7, 66:5–
67:17; Ex. 1030, 6:57–7:2).11 According to Petitioner, “Ladd’s speech/voice
pattern is determined at the second step of identifying the instructed
command in the Ladd [interactive voice response] system (i.e., identifying a
key word or phrase) and subsequent to converting the speech into text.”
Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 2–9).
Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s claim construction, which
excludes the use of predefined voice patterns, applies only to the first step of
the speech recognition process, i.e., when a user’s speech is converted into
text. Reply 7. Petitioner urges that Ladd’s ASR “unit 254 first recognizes
the words from the user’s speech input and then performs the second step of
determining whether the speech inputs match any key word or phrase via
comparison to a stored grammar or vocabulary.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 9:31–
36, 8:23–25; Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 4–8). According to Petitioner, Ladd’s
“[d]etermination of a voice pattern, i.e., a key word or phrase, is performed
only after the speech input is converted into text,” and “[t]hus, Ladd’s
speech/voice patterns are distinct from ‘voice patterns’ that the ʼ084 Patent
allegedly[12] excludes.” Id. at 7–8. Petitioner then details why it believes
Ladd’s voice patterns are distinct from those excluded from Patent Owner’s
claim construction. Id. at 8–12. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner
“makes no showing [that] Ladd’s voice patterns are the excluded

11 We note here that Petitioner cites to Mr. Occhiogrosso’s deposition
testimony, which was provided on behalf of Patent Owner.
12 As noted supra, Petitioner asserts that we should adopt a claim
construction that likewise excludes such voice patterns. Reply 2, 14.
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

24

‘predefined’ voice patterns,” and thus “has not established that Ladd fails to
teach a speaker-independent speech recognition device.” Id. at 12.
In its sur-reply, Patent Owner disputes that Ladd discloses a two-step
speech recognition process and asserts that “[s]peech recognition in Ladd is
a single step process” which “requires a speech recognition device that is
based on voice patterns, something that is expressly disclaimed by the ʼ084
Patent.” Sur-Reply 6. Specifically, Patent Owner alleges that “[t]here is no
disclosure or teaching that [] ASR unit 254 performs a first step of
converting speech to text during speech recognition.” Id. at 7. Rather,
according to Patent Owner, “Ladd does not convert speech to text. Instead,
it performs recognition based on voice patterns.” Id. at 7–8. For support,
Patent Owner points out that Ladd already contains a speech-to-text or
“STT” unit 256 which would be superfluous if ASR unit 254 converted
speech to text. Id. at 9.
Patent Owner asserts that “Ladd is unambiguous that ‘[w]hen the ASR
unit 254 identifies a selected speech pattern of the speech inputs, the ASR
unit 254 sends an output signal to implement the specific function associated
with the recognized voice pattern.’” Id. at 12–13. Thus, Patent Owner
argues, if Petitioner’s interpretation of Ladd requiring a two-step process “is
correct, Ladd would convert the audio input, which is a voice pattern, into
text, then it would have to convert the text back to the voice pattern in order
to match it to a particular voice pattern related to a grammar.” Id. at 13.
Patent Owner also disputes that Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony supports
Petitioner’s position that speech recognition necessarily requires two steps.
Id. at 13–15. Rather, Patent Owner contends that many of Mr.
Occhiogrosso’s statements pertained to the ʼ084 patent––not Ladd–– and
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

25

that he distinguished between use of phonemes and voice pattern
recognition. Id. Finally, Patent Owner argues that Ladd’s voice patterns are
identical to those that are excluded from the District Court’s construction.
Id. at 15–18.
5. Obviousness Analysis of Claim 1
Consistent with our claim construction of “speaker-independent
speech-recognition device” discussed supra, this limitation requires a
“speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using
predefined voice patterns.”
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Obviousness is resolved based on
underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence
of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
(1966).
Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the
challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent
Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner must demonstrate obviousness by a
preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d); see
also Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

26

identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the
challenge to each claim”)).
We have analyzed both parties’ arguments and evidence consistent
with these legal principles and, on the complete record, find Petitioner has
not met its burden to establish––by a preponderance of the evidence––that
Ladd’s ASR unit 254 does not use predefined voice patterns to recognize
spoken words.
We begin by noting that Petitioner relies solely on Ladd’s automatic
speech recognition (ASR) unit 254 to evince the claimed “speaker-
independent speech-recognition device.” Pet. 23–24. Petitioner asserts that
“[t]he ASR unit ‘processes the speech inputs from the user to determine
whether a word or a speech matter matches any of the [stored] grammars.’”
Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1004, 9:28–44, 8:19–28).
Ladd expressly teaches that
ASR unit 254 processes the speech inputs from the user to
determine whether a word or a speech pattern matches any of the
grammars or vocabulary stored in the database server unit 244 or
downloaded from the voice browser. When the ASR unit 254
identifies a selected speech pattern of the speech inputs, the ASR
unit 254 sends an output signal to implement the specific
function associated with the recognized voice pattern. The ASR
unit 254 is preferably a speaker independent speech recognition
software package, Model No. RecServer, available from Nuance
Communications. It is contemplated that the ASR unit 254 can
be any suitable speech recognition unit to detect voice
communications from a user.
Ex. 1004, 9:31–44.
Thus, in the Petition, Petitioner expressly relied on Ladd’s
descriptions of detecting or identifying speech patterns or voice patterns
when Petitioner identified the disclosure in Ladd that teaches a “speaker-
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

27

independent speech recognition device.” Petitioner confirmed this reliance
at oral argument. Tr. 23:21–23 (“This paragraph at column 9, beginning at
line 28, was relied on in the petition for supporting the speaker independent
speech recognition device.”). Additionally, Dr. Terveen provided expert
testimony supporting the arguments in the Petition, characterizing Ladd in
the same manner, and citing to essentially the same disclosure in Ladd.
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–91 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:19–28, 9:28–44). Petitioner appears
to still rely on Ladd’s statements of detecting or identifying speech or voice
patterns. Tr. 22:4 (“We’re still relying on the same disclosure that is in
Ladd.”), 23:24–24:3 (“JUDGE McKONE: Are you withdrawing your
reliance on this paragraph or portions of this paragraph? MS. BAILEY: No,
Your Honor. I’m not withdrawing it at all. In fact, I think it does still
continue to support our position.”).
Assuming that Petitioner is correct, and that Ladd’s description of
voice/speech patterns applies only to an unclaimed second step, and not the
claimed speaker-independent speech recognition, this portion of Ladd fails
to evince that ASR unit 254 recognizes spoken language without using
predefined voice patterns because Ladd does not describe how it recognizes
speech. Petitioner acknowledged this fact at oral argument. Tr. 47:20–24
(“I think what’s going on at this discussion regarding the detection unit in
Ladd is speech recognition is so well-known that the patent drafter simply
said we’re going to look at audio inputs and compare to the recognition
grammar and didn’t describe all the intermediate steps.”). Moreover,
Mr. Occhiogrosso testified on cross-examination that there are a variety of
methods in the art for recognizing words spoken by a user, including some
that use voice patterns and some (e.g., artificial intelligence or using
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

28

phonemes) that do not. Ex. 1039, 54:6–55:7. Petitioner confirmed at oral
argument that this is true. Tr. 15:20–16:12:
MS. BAILEY: . . . During Mr. Occhiogrosso’s deposition, we
started talking about speech recognition algorithms, and he
explained that voice patterns and analyzing the voice patterns is
just one class of speech recognition algorithms. He talked about
voice patterns. He talked about phonemes. But he said there’s
all kinds of speech recognition algorithms that can be used to
recognize the speech and convert it into text. For example, you
can --
JUDGE McKONE: Do you agree with that statement? That’s
not something you’re challenging, is it?
MS. BAILEY: We’re not challenging that there are different
types of speech recognition algorithms.
JUDGE McKONE: Okay. Some that use voice patterns and
some that do not.
MS. BAILEY: That is correct. And there are others beyond that.
He talked about during his deposition that you could use AI, you
could use neural networks, statistical analyses. There’s probably
even more but those are the ones that he mentioned during his
deposition.
Dr. Terveen testifies that “[t]here are a number of methods by which a
system may perform this first step of converting the spoken words into text,
but Ladd is not specific on how it requires step one to occur.” Ex. 1040 ¶ 3
(emphasis added). Thus, based on the testimony of both experts, simply
saying that a device uses “speaker independent automatic speech
recognition,” as Ladd does (Ex. 1004, 9:28–30), does not establish that the
device performs that recognition “without using predefined voice patterns,”
as the claim construction for limitation 1[c] requires.
On the fully developed trial record, Petitioner has not introduced
persuasive evidence to fill the gap between Ladd’s silence on how it
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

29

performs “speaker independent automatic speech recognition” and what
Petitioner would need to in order to establish performance of speech
recognition without using predefined voice patterns. The argument and
evidence submitted with the Reply does not add to Ladd’s disclosure
materially, and the thrust of Petitioner’s Reply arguments is that Patent
Owner failed to show an equivalency between the ’084 patent’s “voice
patterns” and Ladd’s “speech” and “voice” patterns. Reply 8–12. However,
Petitioner bears the burden to show that Ladd performs speech recognition
without using predefined speech patterns; Patent Owner bears no burden to
show that Ladd performs recognition using predefined speech patterns. See
35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (“In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter,
the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of
unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”); Dynamic Drinkware,
800 F.3d at 1378.
Petitioner’s Reply and Dr. Terveen’s testimony do not show how
Ladd’s ASR 254 performs its speaker-independent automatic speech
recognition, and specifically do not show that it performs recognition
without using predefined speech patterns. Reply 3–12; Ex. 1003 ¶ 90;
Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 2–25. During oral argument, Petitioner was unable to point to
affirmative evidence supporting its position:
JUDGE McKONE: Now, does Ladd have any specific
disclosure that this speaker independent automatic speaker
recognition is happening without the use of voice patterns?
MS. BAILEY: Well, let me – that’s actually where I was about
to go. So --
JUDGE McKONE: I have read in your brief that you are saying
– you’re probably going to tell me that the parts you highlighted
in blue do not pertain to the speech recognition. And I’d be
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

30

happy to hear about that in a moment. But is there anything
affirmative you want to point me to that shows that this ASR unit
is performing speaker independent automatic speech recognition
without the use of voice patterns?
MS. BAILEY: There is nothing affirmative that says without the
use of voice patterns, using Parus’s definition of the spectral
energy as a function of time. Ladd doesn’t mention a voice
pattern that is a spectral energy as a function of time. It has no
disclosure to that respect. So Ladd doesn’t have anything that
says the speaker independent speech recognition device does not
identify the -- or analyze the spectral energy of the utterance as a
function of time.
Tr. 19:24–20:18
Both the ’084 patent and Ladd mention “Nuance” software. Ex. 1030,
6:30–35; Ex. 1004, 9:38–41. Ladd’s mention of Nuance software does not
provide persuasive evidence that Ladd’s ASR 254 performs speaker-
independent speech recognition without using predefined voice patterns. Dr.
Terveen testifies that
Ladd describes using a commercially-available product from a
company called Nuance to transform speech into text. This is the
same commercially-available product from Nuance that the ’431
and ’084 Patents describe, further indicating to me that Ladd . . .
teaches a speaker independent speech recognition device
substantially similar to the speaker independent speech
recognition device described and claimed in the ’431 Patent.
Ex. 1040 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:4–24; Ex. 1004, 8:23–28). Dr. Terveen’s
testimony does not state the basis for his conclusion that Ladd and the ’431
patent describe the same Nuance software, rather than different software
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

31

made by the same company,13 and we see no evidence to support that
testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not
disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled
to little or no weight.”). In any case, Petitioner admitted at oral argument
that the record does not include any evidence to support Dr. Terveen’s
opinion on the Nuance software. Tr. 46:10–14 (“JUDGE McKONE: . . . Do
we have any evidence in the record as to what this Nuance software is and
whether or not it is the same between Ladd and the challenged patents? MS.
BAILEY: No, we do not, Your Honor.”).
In light of both experts’ testimony that “speaker-independent speech
recognition” can be performed in a variety of ways (including using
predefined voice patterns), and Petitioner’s failure to offer evidence of how
Ladd’s ASR 254 operates, we find that, at most, Ladd is silent as to whether
its “speaker independent automatic speech recognition” is performed
“without using predefined voice patterns.” This is insufficient for Petitioner
to meet its burden of proof.14

13 The ̓ 084 patent states that “[a] preferred speech recognition engine is
developed by Nuance Communications,” without further identifying the
specific software. Ex. 1030, 6:30–32; see also id. at 22:51–52 (same). Ladd
states that “[t]he voice recognition engine is preferably a RecServer software
package, available from Nuance Communications.” Ex. 1004, 8:25–28.
14 AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 912 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir.
2019), and Sud-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Technologies, Inc., 554 F.3d 1001
(Fed. Cir. 2009) do not lead to a different outcome. In AC Technologies, the
Federal Circuit determined that substantial evidence supported a Board
finding that prior art taught copying that was independent of an access to a
computer unit, despite the lack of an express disclosure of this “negative
limitation,” based on inferences the Board drew from the prior art’s
disclosure and expert testimony explaining the prior art. 912 F.3d at 1366–
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

32

And Petitioner’s theory that “[s]peech recognition that determines the
content of the spoken word is broadly divided into two steps: (1) converting
the spoken utterance into text, i.e., words; and (2) determining the content of
the recognized words, e.g., determining if words are keywords that issue a
command” fares no better. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1039, 51:14–52:22). Even
assuming that Petitioner’s two-step process theory is true,15 Petitioner has
not demonstrated sufficiently that Ladd’s ASR 254 even converts speech
into text, much less that any such conversion by ASR 254 does not use
predefined voice patterns. Pet. 23–24; see Ex. 1040 ¶ 3 (Dr. Terveen
testifying that “[t]here are a number of methods by which a system may
perform this first step of converting the spoken words into text, but Ladd is
not specific on how it requires step one to occur.”).
In sum, Petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence
that Ladd discloses the claimed “speaker-independent speech-recognition
device.” It follows that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable.

67. In Sud-Chemie, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court finding that
prior art disclosed an “uncoated” film based on description in the prior art
that did not describe the film as coated and did not suggest the necessity of
coatings. 554 F.3d at 1004–05. In this proceeding, Petitioner does not need
to show that Ladd affirmatively states a negative limitation. However,
neither Petitioner nor its expert witness provides any persuasive evidence
showing why we should infer from Ladd’s silence that its ASR 254 performs
speaker-independent speech recognition in a manner consistent with claim
limitation 1[b].
15 Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s theory. Sur-reply 6–8. We need not,
and do not, determine whether Ladd’s process is a two-step process as
alleged by Petitioner. See Reply 4.
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

33

6. Obviousness Analysis of Claims 2–7, 10, and 14
As with claim 1, Petitioner relies on Ladd’s ASR 254 to satisfy the
claimed “speaker-independent speech-recognition device” incorporated into
dependent claims 2–7, 10, and 14. As explained supra, Petitioner has failed
to meet its burden to establish by a preponderance of evidence that Ladd’s
ASR unit 254 satisfies this claim element. It follows, then, that Petitioner
has failed to establish that claims 2–7, 10, and 14 are unpatentable.
D. Remaining Obviousness Grounds 4–6
Petitioner advances three additional obviousness grounds regarding
claims 1–7, 10, and 14. Pet. 64–67. Each of these grounds, however, relies
on the same Ladd disclosure of ASR unit 254 to evince the claimed
“speaker-independent speech-recognition device” required by the challenged
claims. Id. at 64.
As we determined supra, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to
establish by a preponderance of evidence that Ladd’s ASR unit 254 satisfies
this claim element. It follows, then, that Petitioner has failed to establish
that claims 1–7, 10, and 14 are unpatentable on these additional grounds.

III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE
Patent Owner moves to exclude paragraphs 2–25 of Dr. Terveen’s
Supplemental Declaration (Ex. 1040) for three reasons. First Patent Owner
argues that this testimony does not respond to arguments raised in the Patent
Owner Response. Mot. Excl. 2–5. Second, Patent Owner argues that this
testimony is an unauthorized and late submission of supplemental
information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b). Id. at 6–9. Third, Patent Owner
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

34

argues that this testimony was improperly incorporated by reference into the
Reply. Id. at 9.
Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s bases for moving to exclude are
not proper and that, to challenge the scope of Dr. Terveen’s declaration,
Patent Owner should have filed a motion to strike. Paper 30, 1, 4–6.
A motion to exclude should be directed to the admissibility of
evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64; Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 79 (November 2019) (“TPG”) (“A motion
to exclude must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance
or hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
to prove a particular fact.”). According to the Trial Practice Guide, a motion
to exclude is not a vehicle to “address arguments or evidence that a party
believes exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply.” TPG 79. Rather,
“[i]f a party believes that a brief filed by the opposing party raises new
issues, is accompanied by belatedly presented evidence, or otherwise
exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply, it may request authorization
to file a motion to strike.” Id. at 80. Patent Owner did not file a motion to
strike.
Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude does not address the admissibility
of Dr. Terveen’s testimony. Rather, it argues that the testimony exceeds the
proper scope of reply evidence, either because it does not respond to the
Patent Owner Response or because Petitioner did not follow our rules in
seeking to submit supplemental information. See generally Mot. Excl.
Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude does
not state a proper basis for excluding evidence and, therefore, we deny the
motion for that reason.
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

35

IV. CONCLUSION16
We conclude Petitioner has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 1–7,
10, and 14 of the ’084 patent is unpatentable.
In summary:
Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims
Not shown
Unpatentable
1–6,
10, 14 103(a)
Ladd, Kurosawa,
Goedken
1–6, 10, 14
7 103(a) Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, Madnick
7
5, 6 103(a) Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, Houser
5, 6
1–6,
10, 14 103(a)
Ladd, Kurosawa,
Goedken, Rutledge
1–6, 10, 14
7 103(a)
Ladd, Kurosawa,
Goedken,
Rutledge, Madnick
7
5, 6 103(a)
Ladd, Kurosawa,
Goedken,
Rutledge, Houser
5, 6

16 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg.
16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application
or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent
Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related
matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

36

V. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that claims 1–7, 10, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,451,084
B2 have not been shown to be unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
Exhibit 1040 is denied;
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2020-00687
Patent 9,451,084 B2

37

FOR PETITIONER:

Jennifer Bailey
Adam Seitz
ERISE IP, P.A.
jennifer.bailey@eriseip.com
adam.seitz@eriseip.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:

Michael McNamara
Michael Renaud
William Meunier
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
mmcnamara@mintz.com
mtrenaud@mintz.com
wameunier@mintz.com